What's to stop people in mountain towns from getting remote jobs? I know many people in Missoula that did this.Quote:
Originally Posted by AdironRider
Printable View
What's to stop people in mountain towns from getting remote jobs? I know many people in Missoula that did this.Quote:
Originally Posted by AdironRider
Depends on what a person sees as equilibrium. Quintessential TRG is a multi-faceted achievement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Toadman
Thanks I’ll add you to the list of people struggling here. Reread what I wrote and your response.Quote:
Originally Posted by liv2ski
STR
It’s the new STD
Ski towns always have empty homes. Waiting for their two week vacation.
But STR is a game changer. In ski and summer vacation areas. Big money buying in for long term appreciation. And STR pays the mortgage.
Um, care to explain further? Because what L2S wrote seems perfectly in line with what you wrote.Quote:
Originally Posted by bennymac
Quote:
Originally Posted by bennymac
Again, can you explain why L2S's post seems to not comprehend your point? Because it seems exactly in line with what you said to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by liv2ski
We don't need to be. They'll catch the ire from the locals where ever they plant their new equity. It's an all inclusive hate from many tribes if we all do our part.Quote:
Originally Posted by m2711c
How is the seller a victim or getting fucked? They're selling for ridiculously high prices, they are walking away with a massive gain. And why do they get a pass for selling to the awful remote workers, contributing to the further driving up of prices, but it's ok to excoriate the buyers?Quote:
Originally Posted by AdironRider
I think my sarcasm may need a less volatile solvent because it was dripping when I first applied it. I don't mind if Carl thinks he's being complimented, since that's literally the worst thing that can happen to him on here, but man if that's a good summation you may need to reassess your underlying position.Quote:
Originally Posted by AdironRider
well playedQuote:
Originally Posted by Conundrum
Quote:
Originally Posted by m2711c
I thought I was following along okay but AR are you saying that the sellers got fucked? Did you get fucked?Quote:
Originally Posted by AdironRider
I asked basically the same question earlier, why is nobody mad at the sellers? You have a nice 'hood, one guy sells out to a guy who builds a mansion, but people are only mad at the mansion guy, not the guy who made it possible by selling. Why?
I speculate it's because 'Merica, and you got a right to score if you can in 'Merica. But apparently if you scored, you're supposed to keep your money in a bucket in the shed. Why score, then?
Boobs.Quote:
Originally Posted by ötzi
Would it be OK if the remote worker made $40K instead of $140K? I mean…having lived in more than one desirable rural location, it was always widely accepted that you had to take some significant haircuts to make it work, and there was a perverse sort of honor in taking half the pay to live some place that others vacationed to. Necessarily, those places were cheap to live, because nobody had any money.Quote:
Originally Posted by AdironRider
But now that’s flipped on its head. And it feels more like a correction than anything else. This is, explicitly, money flowing into areas that in the past have had to beg for tourism in order to survive year to year. Again, income inequality = bad. Gentrification = bad. I agree. But it isn’t universally evil either.
I take advantage of the tax code, I use the deductions that are available to me. The fact that the tax code favors homeownership is something I used on my taxes, because why shouldn't I? That doesn't mean I can't or shouldn't express how fucked I think our tax code is, suggest ways it could be amended (including ways that might hurt my self interest or ways that might eliminate something in the future that I was able to take advantage of), vote in favor of changing it.
Checks out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Conundrum
Cmon man. You’re a lawyer. His response is “so rich people can’t be concerned about poor people?” That’s an obvious trap and not what AR is saying. And then he ices the cake with some cursing to drive it home.Quote:
Originally Posted by Danno
Lord knows I disagree with a lot of what AR says and thinks. And I clearly said “agree or disagree with him”. And I clearly did not state my own opinion on the TV real estate issue (I don’t have to have one).
But it’s 100% obvious people are misunderstanding what he is saying or feigning misunderstanding in order to twist it and dunk on him.
Here let me play: “oh so AR you want Kevo to give his house away to a homeless person and then become homeless himself? Would that make it better? That’s really fucked up man. Why would you say that?
We can argue the merits of his opinion without transparently twisting it for easy rebuttals.
Yes, I'm a lawyer, but pointing that out doesn't mean I agree with you. L2S's post was pretty in line with what he said, maybe not exactly, but close, and complaining about the cursing is pretty strange.Quote:
Originally Posted by bennymac
L2S said "So a person with the means to pay for something can not be concerned for those that can't?" Perhaps if he said "So a person with the means to pay for something, and where paying for it helps keep it unobtainable for those that can't, can not be concerned for those that can't?" it would be 100% on point, but it's not wildly different like you assert it is. And the middle part I included was -- to me -- implied in there, and it's omission didn't make L2S's reading of the situation so wildly off as to warrant your chastising him. But you do you, I am really not sure what your overall point is here. Because the straw man at the end is really weird.
Really weird to post a straw man argument in jest to mock the numerous other straw man arguments being made? Not weird to me.
AR’s point was obvious and clear.
“You can disagree with AR without using straw man arguments” was my obvious and clear point.
Can’t make it more simple that that.
Absolutely nothing in terms of laws or society or whatever, but I think it is unreasonable to think that economic needs and the resulting jobs (aka experience these workers have) that existed in a mountain town prior to the WFH revolution mean every existing mountain town dweller can just convert to a six figure remote position just because they want to.Quote:
Originally Posted by RoooR
the educational and social capital necessary to land a remote job? If we are talking about actual towns, they don’t necessarily offer much for either. City’s like Bozeman, Missoula, etc maybe different and some them had suppressed wages for a whileQuote:
Originally Posted by RoooR
and of course communities have needs for other job types
Yeah, I mean most of them don't even have boots with straps.
I think saying they got fucked was probably a bad choice of words. But most of the people leaving aren't doing so because its a hellhole like (insert midwest rust belt town that most TGR types would be like fuck that to). IME, they are leaving because it no longer works out, typically financially for them, so to say they also need to be the ones who take the high road and take the financial hit of selling at a discount on top of being forced to leave seems like passing a share of the blame only to assuage the guilt of the displacers. Basically its not a 50/50 equal blame share, not even close.Quote:
Originally Posted by ötzi
How big does the community have to be before I can move there and have an opinion or take action on existing or developing housing affordability, worker pay or other structural issues driving local income inequality and quality of life issues?
I left a mountain town 24 years ago because I couldn't afford to buy a home there on the existing salaries. None of this is new. I get that things have accelerated dramatically in the last 2 years, but acting like it is the work from home crowd that has destroyed your paradise is pretty weird.
Not one person has suggested that the sellers should take the high road. What people are saying is that it's a weird position to excoriate the buyers who have the money to buy, as if they should stay somewhere else, yet treat the sellers with kid gloves. If the sellers are allowed to complain about "the current situation" while at the same time getting top dollar for their property, why can't the buyers pay that top dollar, yet complain about "the current situation". THAT is what people are getting at, IMO.Quote:
Originally Posted by AdironRider
Everyone has the right to complain. But the court of TGR will determine parties eligible to exercise that right.